Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Catalyzer (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia


Article Images

AfDs for this article:

Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete this article because it represents just undue weight to a device impossible even only to define with independent sources (the definition that is actually written in the page is wrong and unsupported, more details can be found here). TheNextFuture (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge I think the significant coverage in the article is pretty conclusive that it satisfies all relevant inclusion policies. There is also ample and adequate sourcing to meet WP:FRINGE requirements as well. Impossibility of the device isn't a grounds for removing it from wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk)
It doesn't matter if it works or not. The article is about E-Cat, so can you define it possibly with independent sources? If you cannot, you can try also with the declarations of Rossi (even if independent source are strictly required by wikipedia). Good Luck! --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a large number of primary sources in the article, principally ny teknik, but there are some independent sources too like forbes, focus and Wired. I wouldn't mind trimming the fat that is solely based on involved non-independent sources; and a merge is always possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there is Forbes who says that about the E-Cat "there's no real news". So this case is really simple, we have even sources that state that we are keeping a separated article about no real news. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me too. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's WP:SNOWing keeps Lots and lots of us think this thing is a scam, and judging from the way the article is not being updated (New Energy Times seemingly providing the only ongoing coverage, and we've decided that it isn't reliable for our purposes) it looks as though this is going to be one of those things that just fades away. That said, the consensus the last time was overwhelming, and judging from the nominator's attempts to feel things out on the article talk page, consensus is not going to change. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other similar machines, like those of Arata, are reasonably not present in wikipedia. At the moment, this device has nothing to do with LERN which can be supported with independent sources (in contrast to what is written actually in the article). So it is an undue weight to a claim of only one person. --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arata machine got almost ZERO coverage from media compared with the coverage deserved by the media towards the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, at least from the scientific point of view. Consider also that the same discussion is valid for the machine of Fleischmann–Pons, which had definitely higher media coverage compared to E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One commentator in the last debate called this a "noteworthy scam" and that's probably a useful way to think of things if you happen to be convinced of the crackpot nature of the "cold fusion industry." There is still POV lurking in this piece that needs to be weeded out, but that's an editing matter. Passes GNG, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've changed my mind on it being a "noteworthy scam". If you look at mainstream coverage, it has had very little. There are endless blogs of course. Even the Forbes quotes are from the Forbes blog. The e-cat deserves 1 paragraph in the Rossi page so it can be with his other scams Bhny (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason to delete. The nominator just doesn't like it. There's plenty of stuff been written about it - and when or if it turns about to be measurement error or scam, or when or if it turns out to be real, there will be plenty more. Tmccc (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, I like a lot the E-Cat. But here we are discussing about the article and especially about the missing sources, not of what I like or not. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is well source and followed by the media (last article published today: [1]). The article is well balanced, well referenced, well written.
    Be the issue less polarising, nobody would even remotely think to start an AfD.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nyteknik is a primary source since they are closely involved with Rossi. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ny Teknik article is about Rossi's latest device, not the E-Cat as described by our article - there are no reliable sources on the new device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ny Teknik article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). Not much of a mention, and anyway, it has already been made clear on several occasions that over-reliance on Ny Teknic as a source is highly problematic. And don't you think that it might be better to describe Holm as the source does, "CEO of Hydro Fusion", rather than as "physicist" - I'd think that 'CEO' might imply 'COI' here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right AndyTheGrump: physicist Magnus Holm is the "CEO of Hydro Fusion".--Insilvis (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Andrea Rossi. At this point, Rossi seems (judging by the only sources we have - unreliable ones) to have abandoned his original, 'patented' and 'demonstrated' E-Cat, and is now promoting another 'high temperature' device about which there are no meaningful reliable sources whatsoever, apart from a recent report in Ny Teknik (itself a questionable source, as discussed previously, due to it's lack of expertise and close involvement with Rossi), which doesn't describe the device, states (from what Google translate makes of it) that the 'high temperature device has failed tests required by potential Swedish investors. [2] What is and what isn't an E-Cat has become less clear by the day, almost every prior claim by Rossi has subsequently been retracted, or swept under the carpet, and all the predictions about the device coming onto the market have been proven false. Quite simply, there is no E-Cat except in as much as Rossi claims that such a device exists - and a device for which there is no meaningful verifiable evidence doesn't merit its own article. If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims, almost all subsequently proven to be without merit, to have invented a something-or-other that somehow-or-other produces excess heat. Rossi's unverified claims belong solely in an article about him. To have an article on an apparently miraculous device that exists solely in his imagination (as far as reliable sources can determine) is entirely undue. Sadly, the previous AfD failed to address this point properly, and instead got sidetracked into crystal-ball-gazing about what was 'going to happen soon which would make the topic notable'. Even the closing admin seems to have fallen into this trap: "a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell". Time has now told, and there is no longer any pretence at science, fringe or not, as far as Rossi's original device (the topic of the article) is concerned. If the device had any genuine long-term notability (as required under Wikipedia notability guidelines), there would be more material on it coming out. Instead, the few sources that took it at all seriously as anything other than unverifiable hype from Rossi have dropped the subject entirely. Rossi may be notable for the hype, but his magic teapot can have no notability beyond him, for the simple reason that there is no meaningful evidence that any such thing exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to the merge - issue already discussed two times in the past. My opposition to this merge stems from the simple fact, according to what it is reported, that the Energy Catalyzer is the result of a team work developed by inventor Andrea Rossi together with physicist Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, there is no team work in the E-Cat development: "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi". The source to this sentence is just the list of the professors of the Bologna university (the same as support that I have won the Nobel prize with the list of inmates of my apartment). The problem here is that Focardi doesn't know anything about the inside of the device, as he said clearly the last year. The Italian patent reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi", without any mention to Focardi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insilvis, Please do not !vote twice. And can you point to an independent reliable source that states that Focardi even knows what is inside the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheNextFuture,
these are some of the initial references in the Energy Catalyzer page:
[3][4][5] where it is written that Andrea Rossi developed the Energy Catalyzer with Sergio Focardi.
AndyTheGrump,
what I know is what I can find here on Wikipedia, like this (English subtitles available) from TED Talk where Focardi illustrates his work with Rossi on the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't say that Focardi has developed the E-Cat together with Rossi. Focardi has done some works in the contest of nichel cold fusion and somehow Rossi said that he was inspired by them. Focardi says also that there were some meetings many years ago in which he explained to Rossi his previous devices and some of his ideas. He has also participated to some demonstrations until the beginning of the last year, but then he quite disappears. Also the patent (written by Rossi) reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi" without any mention to Focardi. In one of the article of our notes instead it is written: "Sergio Focardi [...] non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi", "As far as we know Sergio Focardi has not already had the possibility of studying the machine and, when we ask, he says to know as much as us". --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Focardi made no mention whatsoever of a presence of Rossi's supposed 'secret catalysts' in the E-Cat - which rather supports my suggestion that he doesn't know what is inside. Incidentally, Focardi's statements about Gamma radiation flatly contradict what Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control. No surprises there: once again, the 'E-Cat' is whatever Rossi wishes to claim it to be, as circumstances require. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheNextFuture,
nice try. But you are 100% WRONG.
This is the complete paraghaph cited by you:
Sergio Focardi, 79 anni, "padre" delle reazioni nichel-idrogeno in Italia, è visibilmente affaticato e si tiene in disparte; Giuseppe Levi, fisico sperimentale, collega di Ferrari a Bologna, è inavvicinabile. Finché non decide di lanciarsi in un'accorata promozione dell'invenzione di Rossi: siamo sorpresi dalla ferma fiducia dello scienziato nell'E-Cat, in contrasto con la cautela di tanti altri ricercatori, perché non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi.
TRANSLATION:
Sergio Focardi, 79, the "father" of the [research about nuclear] reactions with nickel and hydrogen in Italy, is apparently fatigued and stand by; Giuseppe Levi, experimental physicist, colleague of [Loris] Ferrari at UNIBO [=Bologna], is unapproachable. Until he decides to start a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention: we are surprised by the firm trust shown by the scientist in the E-Cat, in contrast with the cautiousness of many other researchers, (NOTEbyInsilvis: Levi is a researcher at UNIBO) because we are not aware that he has indeed had the possibility to study the machine and him, inquired by us, affirm to know about it as much as us.
Therefore, it is clear that the text mentioned by you, TheNextFuture, refers to Giuseppe Levi and not to Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is clear that the meaning is the opposite, Levi is unapproachable and then Focardi starts a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention. In any case, the main sources are the patents (written directly by Rossi) in which the only inventor is "Andrea Rossi" (in fact he is the only one involved in the commercial management of the "E-Cat" and of its selling). The contribution of Focardi is completely neglected and it remains impossible to establish. Also in many of the websites that support explicitly the E-Cat, Focardi is an unspecified "scientific consultant" ("Andrea Rossi and his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" and "His research, aided by his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" just as example). --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer you because I am so angry for your behaviour that I would be immediately banned from Wikipedia should I express my view about your behaviour in this specific situation! Translating is something I hate, but I was force to do it because you decided to OMIT a crucial point in your quotation and so the sense of the paragraph was completely turned upside down by you. The discussion is closed for me, let the readers decide who is right and who is not.--Insilvis (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS
http://ecatreviews.com/ AND http://rossienergycatalyzers.com ???
Are these reliable sources according to you??? --Insilvis (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe in me and you don't like translations, you can look at the paper signed by Rossi and also Focardi, this is in English. Inside and in the abstract is linked directly the international patent application, where again Rossi is the only name written in the field "inventor". So also the same Focardi agrees that Rossi is the only inventor. For the rest, I can only say to you: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written in the same moment". Anyway, we have already explained our points of view, question closed. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: Considering that now the unspecified support, and I repeat support ("with support from physicist Sergio Focardi"), of Focardi has as a source the list of the professors of Bologna, everything is better.[reply]
Merge works for me, it looks like the sources have died off now, and in the long run this will probably fade into the background; Rossi is what is truly notable. Much of the content in the Energy Catalyzer article is primary sourced and about random demonstrations at places, so the trim and merge would work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me just only one source about the E-Cat (and not of Rossi and his declarations)? --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, like the one published today? --Insilvis (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this is only an article about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself. The net is full of those articles, and up to now some supposed contracts signed by Rossi are at end failed. By coincidence, about the E-Cat it says only that there wasn't an energy gain in one of the demonstrations in Bologna in September, again the opposite of what is written by other sources (and by wikipedia article). Or is this again a misleading due the automatic translators of Swedish? --TheNextFuture (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). So the article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm, who is the CEO of Hydro Fusion, cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: for completeness, I include also the translation of the sentence "Vid investerarnas mätning den 6 september i Bologna kunde dock ingen värmeenergi konstateras utöver den inmatade elektriska effekten." given by the translator: "When investors measuring 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found beyond the input electrical power." So, accordingly to this webpage it seems complete false that the E-Cat is an heat source, as written in the first line of the article ("The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a [...] heat source"). --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still misleading! This other sentence you are now referring to was the part of the article that is, according to your word, "about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself."--Insilvis (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely, I don't understand what do you mean. There are no reference in that sentence to the business, but to the heat measurements that were done ("no heat energy is found"). I don't know exactly to what machine is referred this sentence, but it doesn't matter. The point is not if the E-Cat works or not, but just only that about it you cannot write anything, even if you look only at the primary sources (and in principle you should have independent sources). --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a video of Rossi talking about Focardi- "He does not know how the reactor is built" [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhny (talk • contribs)
Hehe, I can only smile and repeat again: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written (and now said) in the same moment". For this reason I support the merge of the essential news to the article of Rossi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still misleading information!
In the video posted just above, Rossi said that Focardi does not know how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are, but as you can see from the photos shown during the TED talk of Focardi (see here) there was no lead coverage at the beginning of the development. In other words, the lack of knowledge about how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are does not mean that Focardi did not participate in the development of the Energy Catalyzer since early stages.--Insilvis (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi does not know how thick the lead walls are because "He does not know how the reactor is built". How much clearer do you want it? Bhny (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focardi doesn't know what the e-cat catalyzer is. He says- "There is a compound that I do not know (nor want to know) that is meant to facilitate the reaction.

" [[7]]
Apart from the fact that Wikipedia IS NOT a blog, and the sources you brought are simply UNUSABLE on Wikipedia, if you know Italian I suggest you to watch this video: Focardi says (as you reported) that there is indeed a catalyst and that he does not know its nature and he does not want to know its nature. However the journalist (who probably is a bit clever than others) asks Focardi if he has an idea about the nature of this catalyst. Focardi promptly responds: "yes, I have. However, because it is a secret I prefer not to tell you". So Focardi affirms that he does not know the nature of this catalyst, and he does not want to know it, and even if he has an idea of what the catalyst is he does not want to tell. Here I have to stop, but my personal opinion is that he knows everything. Otherwise he would not have any problem to answer the question posed by the journalist. About your other consideration: "He does not know how the reactor is built" is what Rossi says at THAT POINT of the video you point out, but if you watch the previous thirty seconds of that video it is clear that Rossi is talking about the lead walls surrounding the reactor. In other words, Rossi refers just to the nuclear envelope.--Insilvis (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am only trying to show you that it is obviously not teamwork by showing you Rossi and Focardi admitting as much. Somehow your personal opinion contradicts what they themselves say. Bhny (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in the video you brought to our attention Rossi and Focardi were interviewed together, cheek-to-cheek, just because it is not a team work between the two, right?--Insilvis (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is to ignore what they say and measure how close their cheeks are? Bhny (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than to preserve the edit history so that when the truth is known, we can track the evolution of a controversial topic. Jim Bowery (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is merged, the edit history will be preserved, as is usual in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As already showed in the first deletion discussion, the topic is notable. TheNextFuture seems to be a very new contributor, and may not have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works; so, undue weight should not be a reason to delete an article, but, in a more constructive way, to write articles about equally or more notable topics which do not exist; the same way, badly written or POV articles should be improved and not deleted. As for merging to Andrea Rossi article, it does not seem a good idea to me, because Andrea Rossi is not notable per se, but just because of E-Cat notability (see creation dates in the histories). Croquant (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new user of wikipedia, but I have been for a long time an ip contributor. A separate article for the E-Cat is an undue weight as itself, since for example there isn't (rightly) a separate article for the Fleischmann–Pons device, which had greater media coverage and scientific attention. Rossi is notable per se, because of his recent and previous controversial attempts in the energy world (i.e. also Petroldragon). Merging to the page of Rossi is the only solution, nothing of clear and with sources can be written in an article about the E-Cat (look above at the discussion about the role of Focardi if you want an example). Instead we have a lot of sources that describe the behavior and the declarations of Rossi, as the major (and I would say unique) contributor to the E-Cat affairs. It doesn't matter if the E-Cat works or not (we have an article about Telepathy), it doesn't matter also if it is a black box (Windows 7 is for some aspects a black box), but it is important that "If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims ..." as AndyTheGrump has written above. In any case, even if you keep it, the article definitively needs a lot of corrections. --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your answer, I persist in thinking you do not understand correctly Wikipedia principles. Croquant (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]